Agenda item

(Mrs S Hohler and Mr C Jones were present for this item)

(1)       Mrs Hohler explained that there was an unexpected pressure on primary school places in the Kings Hill area in 2010.  It had been anticipated that schools on Kings Hill might not be able to meet demand for places by 2011 and Mr Jones held a meeting with the affected Headteachers in autumn 2009 to make this clear.  It was thought at that time that it would just be possible to cope with 2010 admissions while plans were put in place for the future. There was a discussion on options which included putting an additional class or part of a class at the Discovery School, or directing additional children to Wateringbury School or siting a mobile classroom at West Malling school.  

(2)       Subsequently talks were held with the Liberty Group (the developers of Kings Hill) and an agreement reached in principle that an empty class room at the Discovery School could be used.  The Headteacher of the Discovery School agreed that she would be happy to admit an additional form of entry in the future if need arose.   After the cut off period for admission at the end of March 2010, Mr Long (local Member), Mrs Hohler,  Mr Jones and the Headteacher of Discovery School received a number of emails from parents about the pressure on places at Kings Hill, and their inability to access a place at their local schools.   It was understood that 11 Kings Hill children had been allocated Wateringbury Primary School plus 3 at  West Malling and 3 at St James the Great school.  Mrs Hohler had also heard from parents of children at Wateringbury Primary School that they did not want the school to be under pressure in future years from sibling links due to the allocation of places to children from Kings Hill.

 (3)      At the end of the spring term, Mr Jones met with the Headteacher, Mr Long and a governor of Discovery School and following this meeting 27 children from Kings Hill were found not to have been allocated a place at a Kings Hill Primary School.  During the Easter holidays, it became difficult to contact some Headteachers who were on vacation, in fact a number of them were delayed in returning from abroad due to the Icelandic volcanic ash situation.  Mr Jones managed to contact the Headteacher of the Discovery School who was in France and she agreed to admit an additional class. The Headteacher of Wateringbury Primary School was in agreement with this, while the Headteachers of West Malling Primary School and St James the Great were not happy with this arrangement.  The former in particular was concerned about the impact which it might have on his school’s September 2010 admissions.  There were two other affected schools whose headteachers could not be contacted.

4)         On 19 May Mr Jones met with the Chairman of Governors and Headteacher of West Malling School to discuss their concerns about the decision to admit additional pupils to Discovery School. 

(5)       Mrs Hohler stated that the decision to add an additional class to the Discovery School was an officer decision with the Cabinet Member and Leader being kept informed.  This had been the result of a pragmatic approach given there was likely to be sibling pressures for the other schools in the future and that there was longer term planning for the Kings Hill site.

(6)       Mr Jones explained that it was a decision for the local Authority to determine that a school may admit above its Published Admission Number (PAN) which is the decision that was reached in this case.

(7)       Mrs Dean stated that she had concerns with this decision, the first was the decision itself and how it was made and the second was that it exemplified the problem that local Members had in scrutinising decisions.

(8)       Mrs Dean clarified that she was not suggesting that the authority had been in breach of the Code for doing what was necessary to expand the school but the outcome was unsatisfactory for the Primary Schools in her area.  She stated that obtaining information on how the decision had been taken had been difficult and that if the information given today had been made available on 8 May the need to come to this Board may have been avoided.  She had not known that there were 27 children from Kings Hill who had not been allocated a place at a Kings Hill School and that the intention was to create the additional class for one year only.  As this was an ongoing pressure, she asked what the long term plans were for dealing with this.  She stated that she had been of the view for sometime that there was a need for a third school on Kings Hill, however she accepted that there was not a site for it. 

(9)  Mrs Dean raised the point that she, as the local Member for West Malling and East Malling schools, which were affected by the decision, had not been informed.  She was informed of the situation on 8 May 2010 by a local resident.  She referred to the Constitution which clearly stated that officers must consult the relevant local Member(s) on any matter that specifically affected their division.   It had always been the policy of the County Council to allocate children places in schools with vacancies, if they were not able to be allocated their preferred school. This year there had been a change to this policy which had put East Malling School in difficulties.  The Headteacher of East Malling School had received a phoned call during the Easter Holidays informing her of what was going to happen, but until that point she had not been consulted.

(10)  Mrs Hohler stated that since she had become a Cabinet Member she had ensured that Children, Families and Education directorate involved Local Members.  As far she was aware the Local Member in this case was Mr Long.  There was a policy of supporting local schools and the parents of pupils at Wateringbury School were content with its current size.  A decision was taken by officers to deal with the situation this year.  At independent education admission appeals for secondary schools appeals were allowed which increased admission numbers over the PAN for schools on a number of occasions.  She expressed the view that a radical overhaul of the admissions policy was needed as the current situation made it difficult for schools to forward plan.  In relation to Kings Hill the Local Member for that area was consulted and places offered.  This happened quickly and the parents were grateful.  She believed that the decision was a good one and thanked Mr Jones.

(11)     Mr Jones stated that he was the Education officer for the area and he accepted that he should have informed Mrs Dean and apologised for not doing so. 

(12)     He explained that this was not a one year problem, however the extent of the problem this year was unexpected and he had made a decision that it needed to be addressed.  In the autumn of 2009 he believed that the situation would be tight but thought that there would be 4 spare places.  In the event 17 pupils were understood to have been allocated other schools at the end of the spring term.  He referred to emails received by Mr Long, the local Member and the Headteacher.  Some parents had submitted their applications using their road name and this had not identified them as being on Kings Hill, therefore in the Easter Holidays it had become apparent that there were 27 pupils who were not allocated a Kings Hill School.  The reasons for the unexpectedly large number of pupils seeking places were uncertain but one contributory factor may have been the economic situation leading fewer parents to send their children to independent schools.  There was need for a contingency arrangement for 2010 and potentially 2011 whilst actions were taken to secure greater primary school provision on Kings Hill for the future.  A site for a third school at Kings Hill had been identified but it might not be the best solution.  In relation to the Headteacher of East Malling School, Mr Jones stated that he understood that she had anticipated that parents from Kings Hill who had been allocated a place at her school would probably find another school and when he informed her of the decision she did not appear exercised.

(13)  Mr Horne stated that this situation existed in other areas and in the case of places at secondary school the pressure was greater.  He referred to situations where secondary school Headteachers indicated that they could take a whole additional class to relieve pressures which called in to question how Headteachers could defend the published admission numbers on appeal. He was not sure that some Headteachers believed in the PAN numbers.

(14)     Mrs Hohler agreed with Mr Horne in relation to the situation in secondary admissions.  There was a view that Government should do something about statutory appeals, it was important that children were allocated the school that was suitable for them. 

(15)     Mr Dance emphasised the importance of taking into account the statutory requirement limiting primary school classes to 30 pupils only.  He agreed that Mr Jones had made the right decision. 

(16)     Mr Tweed believed that officers had done the honourable thing and had acted with integrity, but that there were lessons to be learned about consulting widely with all local Members. 

(17)     In relation to a concern raised about consistency between East and West Kent, Mr Jones explained that Area Education Officers worked as a team across the county to try to achieve consistency.  Clearly difficult situations arise in different parts of the county and due to different circumstances it was not always possible to apply the same solution across the board.

(18)     Mr Lake asked if it was possible to have one extra class for one year only without creating on going problems. Mrs Hohler explained that one reason why it was important that the decision was taken quickly was to enable the Discovery School to recruit additional staff for September 2010.  She hoped that other local primary schools took it as a wake up call and showed parents how good their schools were. 

(19)  In relation to a site for a third school at Kings Hill, Mrs Dean suggested that as Admissions were becoming more of a challenge, one of the CFE POSC’s should look at identifying areas across the county where capacity in school was a problem, this was not just a Kings Hill problem.

(20)     Mrs Dean stated that she understood the urgency of the decision as St James the Great school had to decide whether to make a member of staff redundant depending on the outcome.

(21)     In relation to the process, Mrs Dean expressed concern about the length of time taken to get clarity around whether this had been an officer or Cabinet Member decision, and the effect that this had on the scrutiny process. It was also important for there to be more clarity around what is a key decision and which decisions should appear in the Forward Plan of Key Decisions.  If this decision had been identified as a Key Decision and that process followed there would not have been a need to call it into Scrutiny.  

(22)     In response Mrs Hohler stated that she did not accept that it had taken an unacceptable length of time to obtain clarity around who took the decision.

(23)     Mr Hotson summed up and stated that it would appear that this decision had been properly dealt with as an Officer decision.  The Officer had apologised for not consulting all the local members involved and lessons would be learned from this.  It had been suggested that the CFE POSC’s may wish to have an item on future agendas on admissions policy. There seems to have been general agreement that this was a special case where it was necessary to take action as a matter of urgency and all that could be done was done for the benefit of the children and parents.  He supported Mrs Dean regarding the need for officers to inform all affected local members, it was not the responsibility of the schools Head Teachers to keep local members informed.

(24)     RESOLVED that a item be placed on the agenda for one of the CFE POSC’s to consider the primary school admission problems across the county with particular emphasis on areas that were particularly problematic.